SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

(1) The petitioners question the propriety of a show cause notice issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited threatening to terminate an agreement by which the petitioner firm operates a petrol pump on NH-6 at Mechogram in district Purba Medinipur. The principal prayer in the petition is to set aside the show cause notice. In course of time the petitioners have attempted to enlarge the scope of the proceedings, now that a final order has been made and the corporation has sought leave to implement the final order. In view of the fact that the impugned show cause notice had culminated in a decision being rendered by the corporation, the writ petitioners were given the liberty to withdraw the limited challenge to the show cause notice with leave to carry all points in the comprehensive challenge to the final decision of the corporation. The petitioners have insisted on pursuing this writ petition.

(2) An interim order was made on May 17, 2007 that has been continued. The Court permitted the corporation to proceed with the show cause notice in accordance with law. The corporation was also given liberty to pass a final order but it was directed that no effect would be given to such final order without leave of Court. By an order of July 4, 2007 the corporation was given leave to issue a supplementary show cause notice. Affidavits, supplementary affidavits and even an application have been filed. Pursuant to an earlier direction the records relating to the matter have remained in Court.

(3) The petitioners found their challenge to the show cause notice of May 4, 2007 on mala fides on the part of the corporation and its officials.

(4) The petitioner firm sells the Xtra Premium brand of petroleum and diesel from the retail outlet. The firm had put in a requisition for supply of Xtra Premium gasoline in the beginning of November, 2006. On November 4, 2006 the corporation sent a tanker with 4,000 k1 of ordinary petrol (known as motor spirit or MS). The petitioners outlet does not dispense ordinary motor spirit. It is the petitioners case that the second petitioner, who is the principal person in control of the petitioner firm and the operation at the retail outlet (the other partners being his daughters), was not present at the time that the delivery of motor spirit was effected. The motor spirit was decanted into the underground tanks meant for XP brand and was, over the next few days, sold to customers as XP brand. There varying explanations at different stages proffered by the petitioners as to the circumstances in which fuel containing an overwhelming percentage of ordinary motor spirit was sold as XP branded fuel.

(5) It is the petitioners case that for the next three months nothing came of the matter though it had been detected both by the corporation and the petitioners that ordinary motor spirit had been supplied to the petrol pump and had been sold as XP branded fuel thereat. The petitioners state that it was only in March, 2007 that an inspector of the corporation issued an antedated notice of November 23, 2006 calling for an explanation in the matter. It is the petitioners further case that such inspector advised the second petitioner to sign a letter bearing the date of November 30, 2006 on the lines that such inspector suggested on the assurance that the matter would be treated as closed thereupon. The petitioners allege that the notice to show cause of May 4, 2007, in such circumstances, came as a bolt from the blue as the petitioners were content that the aberration had been overlooked and had been given a quiet burial.

(6) The petition was filed shortly after the petitioner firm responded to the show cause notice of May 4, 2007. The show cause notice, in its material part, reads as follows:

"On receipt of the complaint from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas an investigation was held by our officers when following were found in the RO. 1. The outlet is selling only Xtra Premium as the o